Universities are increasing their efforts to more clearly demonstrate their social value. This article illustrates how higher education administrators can incorporate collective impact partnerships in their community benefit strategies. The article explores two of the more familiar paradigms for community benefit-community engagement and anchor institution. Collective impact principles and practices are then presented. Finally, a case study provides a tangible example of how one university's role in a collective impact initiative transitioned in response to the community. We end the article with ten takeaways and an invitation for higher education administrators to identify their own learning and action steps that can help shift focus from proving to improving their institution's value to the community.

O O D has long been an explicit and implicit subject of both state and federal legislation in the United States. Federal legislation has addressed food safety through the regulation of content and labeling of food products and regulation of the food production environment (1). More indirectly, the Congress has promulgated economic policies that subsidize many aspects of food production, ultimately affecting what foods are available to the consumer. Congress has also mandated and controlled federal programs such as the National School Lunch Program (2). States have enacted laws granting regulatory authority to state agencies that inspect and regulate food consumption. Many states also have statutory consumer protection laws that provide redress for individuals who have been injured by a food product. It is in these areas that legislatures have traditionally acted, and where legal levers for future action reside. Federal and state legislatures occasionally acknowledge the obesity epidemic, but little is being done to address the root causes of the problem. A long-standing tension, often styled as that between paternalism and individual liberty, pits public health against American individualism. Against a backdrop of government agriculture subsidies and economic protectionism, health is generally regarded as the sole responsibility of the individual consumer. The public and legislatures fail to recognize government and institutional responsibility for the current "toxic" food environment. We provide a brief overview of the role of federal and state legislatures in mitigating the epidemic. Given the breadth of the subject, we have not attempted a comprehensive analysis of legislation. Instead, we focus on three key domains: economic policy, federal programs, and food health and safety. We

No abstract

No abstract

Summary In September, 1989, the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) announced the Valdez Principles (later changed to the CERES Principles), a code of environmental conduct for corporations. The Principles address all major environmental areas, call on corporations of all types and sizes to endorse and submit an annual report on progress, and have been endorsed by major corporate interests in the United States (US). Endorsing the principles means making a commitment to continual environmental performance improvement within the framework of the principles and entering into a partnership with CERES. CERES is a broadly based coalition of environmental groups, labour, public interest groups, public pension funds, social investors, and religious groups based in the United States. The CERES Principles are the only environmental code developed by a group outside of industry that has corporate endorsers. The ongoing relationship of accountability to a group outside of industry provides CERES companies with a unique model of public environmental accountability.